Discrepancy in Church Practice

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Would you examine a discrepancy of church practice with me?

All my Christian life I have been encouraged to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered.

The UPC Org licences preachers who are not in agreement with the majority-held head-covering doctrine; for, they license those who hold the veil-cover. (Presumably, the Org has not seen it possible to determine just one Biblical head-covering doctrine. Or, is the Org showing an accommodation for some by the acceptance of false doctrine? Can there be two correct Biblical head covering doctrines? No. Yet two are accepted. If two are accepted, then could not three or more also be?)

This acceptance happens on an Organizational level.

What may/does happen, on the saint's-level in churches, is a rejection from Word-serving positions of those not having the same head-covering doctrine as their Pastor, because of failure to agree.

Example: Bro. John Doe believes in the veil covering. He becomes licensed as a preacher. Into his church comes J. Smith, who believes neither in a veil or uncut hair cover; yet has another scriptural stance on 1Co11. J. Smith is refused any Word-serving positions because of lack of agreement with Pastor Doe. Thus, Pastor Doe has been accepted by the Org while not holding what the majority holds, yet Pastor Doe rejects J. Smith, who, like he, also does not hold the majority view.

Do you not see the use of a double standard?

No doubt you've heard it said that Pastors must preach their convictions. But should personal convictions be applied in practice as if they are the Word of God? No? One end result might be dogmatic unscriptural rules applied, as with Hutterites.

Why is what is practised at Org levels, acceptance of two head covering doctrines, not also uniformly practised at local church levels by Pastors? The ways of the Org have not been learnt/copied. What is good by the mother goose is not seen good by the gosling.

If J. Smith is rejected, then what happened to 'use the right judgment', or, 'don't have respect of persons'?

The end-result is, a Pastor is seemingly seen having the ability to determine one clear doctrine, which the Org has not seen the Word providing. The Pastor in a sense usurps the role/authority of the Org. Or: what can not be determined as only-one-head-covering-doctrine on an Organizational level, is seen as able to be determined in a local church, contradictorily.

Does anyone else see something askew? Is the reasoning used faulty?

While it may be that some Pastors would not ever reject J. Smith from Word-serving positions, this acceptance-method is not universally practiced or taught.

The practice which rejects J. Smith, causing them damage, spites a scriptural standard all must use: Ro14; 15.1-7. For a closer look at this scriptural standard, the following commentary is provided:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

How about not trying to bring back a topic that got stopped, under the guise of another topic?

Seems to me, that ship has sailed...let it go.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Bowas

How about not trying to bring back a topic that got stopped, under the guise of another topic?

Seems to me, that ship has sailed...let it go.

You can say that again.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You can say that again.

Dom has said: Don, may I suggest you don't poke the bear.

And he also has said: Another thing, if you don't like what an organization believes or how they do their business? Don't be a part of that organization. It's that simple. Don, is all this belly aching because the UPCI kicked you to the curb? Move on buddy. A public forum is no where to lick your wounds. Also in the UPCI they have districts and it is up to the district board, whether they give the pass on what a preacher sees as far as doctrine. You fell under the wheels of a chariot with the Canadian UPCI? All I can say is oh well. Live for God, and don't be obnoxious. Maybe they'll invite you back.

Hi, Dom. Thx for the friendly advice.

Are we friends now? You'll no doubt agree that many past words spoken to me by you would make it difficult for me to see them as friendly. But do keep up with this new trend. No one knows where it might lead.

Therefore, I see them not as friendly advice but again as posturing as the authority all should want to take heed to.

If you are Apostolic, and I am Apostolic, and the UPC or any other Org is Apostolic, it testifies to a scriptural stand. The Apostolic mantra is 'we've got the Truth'. I love Truth. All should love Truth.

If I say that I love the Word and my church says the same; and my church family then departs from Truth, the responsibility any Christian has is to make efforts to have it to return. That is what "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered" means. You offer unscriptural advice when you say to move on. Or, have I missed something? Plz convince me otherwise.

If you in the past have 'moved on' from a place you should have stayed to fight, then it's not yet too late to return. Perhaps you took the easy road to leave, instead of trying to make things right? Was it related to the topics Ro14 says should have made you acceptable to stay?

I suppose you see yourself as the arbiter of acceptable topics for threads in AFF, by saying what you said. That would make you an Admin. I have yet to see your name anywhere as associated with Admins. As such you may be usurping the role and authority of others.

You thus show two errors: unscriptural advice and usurping. Why should anyone take heed to your advice when you've demonstrated you do not take your own advice? You referred to lines of authority seen in District Boards but circumvented the authority structure seen in AFF leadership to operate outside of it.

The reason some wrongs persist in church practice, leading to some of the fracturing of the Body and countless needless church Orgs seen in the world, is because of the lack of the ability to fight fairly when contending. Proper teaching and acceptance of the teaching of Ro14 would undermine and prevent some of this from occurring.

Your positioning yourself in AFF as the authority which should be heeded demonstrates your place outside of the influence of Ro14. You demonstrate that you think your way is the only way. Ro14 teaches against this. Perhaps you more than any other need to spend some time with Ro14 and prayer. Unity would then be better preserved, while your style of doing things leads to people separating themselves. Is your style of posting slurs the reason why AFF is not used as much as it could be?

It's been refreshing seeing some of your replies use logic and reason, not ranting with disapproving slurs of others. Plz keep it up. Adding theological arguments along with scripture would also make your posts more appealing to those wanting to get into the depths of the Word. You actually had started to do so in the last posts of "1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame", but we were cut short in its continuance by its closing.

Let's get back to the Word and be the Church we are supposed to be, by including the teaching and practice of Ro14.

Lets talk about scripture, Ro14. Do you want to move on from "1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame"? Let's do that too.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom has said: Don, may I suggest you don't poke the bear.

And he also has said: Another thing, if you don't like what an organization believes or how they do their business? Don't be a part of that organization. It's that simple. Don, is all this belly aching because the UPCI kicked you to the curb? Move on buddy. A public forum is no where to lick your wounds. Also in the UPCI they have districts and it is up to the district board, whether they give the pass on what a preacher sees as far as doctrine. You fell under the wheels of a chariot with the Canadian UPCI? All I can say is oh well. Live for God, and don't be obnoxious. Maybe they'll invite you back.

Hi, Dom. Thx for the friendly advice.

Are we friends now? You'll no doubt agree that many past words spoken to me by you would make it difficult for me to see them as friendly. But do keep up with this new trend. No one knows where it might lead.

Therefore, I see them not as friendly advice but again as posturing as the authority all should want to take heed to.

If you are Apostolic, and I am Apostolic, and the UPC or any other Org is Apostolic, it testifies to a scriptural stand. The Apostolic mantra is 'we've got the Truth'. I love Truth. All should love Truth.

If I say that I love the Word and my church says the same; and my church family then departs from Truth, the responsibility any Christian has is to make efforts to have it to return. That is what "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered" means. You offer unscriptural advice when you say to move on. Or, have I missed something? Plz convince me otherwise.

If you in the past have 'moved on' from a place you should have stayed to fight, then it's not yet too late to return. Perhaps you took the easy road to leave, instead of trying to make things right? Was it related to the topics Ro14 says should have made you acceptable to stay?

I suppose you see yourself as the arbiter of acceptable topics for threads in AFF, by saying what you said. That would make you an Admin. I have yet to see your name anywhere as associated with Admins. As such you may be usurping the role and authority of others.

You thus show two errors: unscriptural advice and usurping. Why should anyone take heed to your advice when you've demonstrated you do not take your own advice? You referred to lines of authority seen in District Boards but circumvented the authority structure seen in AFF leadership to operate outside of it.

The reason some wrongs persist in church practice, leading to some of the fracturing of the Body and countless needless church Orgs seen in the world, is because of the lack of the ability to fight fairly when contending. Proper teaching and acceptance of the teaching of Ro14 would undermine and prevent some of this from occurring.

Your positioning yourself in AFF as the authority which should be heeded demonstrates your place outside of the influence of Ro14. You demonstrate that you think your way is the only way. Ro14 teaches against this. Perhaps you more than any other need to spend some time with Ro14 and prayer. Unity would then be better preserved, while your style of doing things leads to people separating themselves. Is your style of posting slurs the reason why AFF is not used as much as it could be?

It's been refreshing seeing some of your replies use logic and reason, not ranting with disapproving slurs of others. Plz keep it up. Adding theological arguments along with scripture would also make your posts more appealing to those wanting to get into the depths of the Word. You actually had started to do so in the last posts of "1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame", but we were cut short in its continuance by its closing.

Let's get back to the Word and be the Church we are supposed to be, by including the teaching and practice of Ro14.

Lets talk about scripture, Ro14. Do you want to move on from "1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame"? Let's do that too.

Don, you are a smack talker. Were you the Mr. Smith in your story who was given the left foot of fellowship? We aren't called to stay in a church family or an organization to be troublemakers. Because you feel you figured it all out, and now desire the need to take everyone to school. No matter if it is eschatology, soteriology, or theology. If the pastor or the elders don't agree with you, you have three roads to go down. One shut up and sit down. Two leave and take your beliefs down the road with you, or three, joust it out with the pastor, and elders. If they are so inclined, and even have the strength to want to climb that mountain. Plain and simple. Also, if you weren't so bent on your ecclesiastical narcissism, you would of noticed this is a self moderating forum. Why? Because there is just a handful of active posters. With one active admin. If you really have a problem with me pointing out the obvious to you take it up with Votivesoul, the active admin. Other than that place me on ignore. I'm not your friend, you don't want friends because true friends won't always agree with you. You want spiderbots and that is all you get on this forum.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone.

The Apostle isn't teaching that the church is to be piloted by each one's opinion. The subject matter is a "weak brother" translated as immature convert who isn't at the level of his brethren. One individual is eating nothing but vegetables because of his fear of not wanting to eat meat offered to idols.

Days are observed in ritualistic fashion by those "weak" in the faith. Paul, would rather have the stronger brethren tolerate the weaker instead of beating the snot out of them. Until those weaker brothers come to the fullness of truth in time. This by no means sets a precedence for everyone to do what they believe to be right in their own mind.

If a pastor, and elders are teaching what they believe to be truth. You have another revelation? You see something they aren't seeing? Then present it to them. If they are open to defend their position, while with an open mind considering your's, then may the Lord bless it. But, if you cannot present your case logically, and Biblically. If you present your case which creates more questions than it answers. Then don't expect anyone to consider any matter you present. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that there are individuals out and about who lied on their resumé when it comes to being a preacher, pastor, leader of men. Who know only what was "told" to them from over a pulpit. Who when challenged on a one on one in a locked office, couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag concerning theology, or any other ology for that matter. Yet, that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about brethren who know book, chapter, and verse. But, I don't want to repeat myself. Don, you sound like a guy who had an epiphany, brought it to the front of the class, and everyone threw paper airplanes at you followed by some spit balls. The organization deals with their preachers on a case to case basis. No matter what the teaching may be. Different districts may let a Preterist bring cheesy corn bake to dinner on the grounds. Or an annihilationist, and Sabbatarian. Beards, wedding rings and even trousers on females all singing "I'm a Pentecostal." Hey, I still can't get a real answer from you on what a "right living man" is supposed to be? Don, you had your back pockets chewed off by an organization? Oh well, deal with it. Move on, and try to find what lesson Jesus was trying to teach YOU. No one else, just teach YOU.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

Plz note what Paul does not do in Ro14.

-He does not here teach on holy days or on foods. His purpose in referencing them is only to use them as examples of the main thought he wishes to convey in Ro14; 15.1-7. He is using them to teach a principle.

-What he could do, is to tell these NT saints that those scriptures are OT, that they don't apply to the Gentile or the NT. But he doesn't.

-You should also notice another thing. He does not tell those who have differing opinions on these two topics, what it is they should be believing about them. In other words, though seeing these two opinions on these topics differ (perhaps even from his), he does not provide the correct understanding, if he thought them wrong. 'Why not?' needs an answer. The answer is why I wrote this thread.

Paul has great understanding of all things OT, the source of the two topics. He also has Apostolic authority. He no doubt has formulated opinions/doctrines on these topics. If Paul truly believes all singular topics in scripture show only one possible correct doctrine, then he leaves one or both of them in the lurch holding false doctrine, when he tells them both they are OK to hold their views. Both views can't be right when differing. They can both be wrong. But instead, he leaves them both thinking they are both right.

Reading the text of Ro14 sees him telling them they are both OK to believe what they believe, even though they believe differently.The correct obvious conclusion is that Paul sees God communicating some things which can have multiple conclusions. This had rubbed my previously-held theology the wrong way, but I'll dare not contradict Paul. He doesn't use either his Apostolic authority or his great OT knowledge to straighten out differences in the doctrine of these others, strangely. Instead, he tells all that it is OK to have two views on the same topic/scripture, (potentially, even if differing from his own views). Hypothetically, if two are seen by Paul as OK, then more than two would also be acceptable.

Plz do not think that I believe every scriptural topic can have multiple correct conclusions. See the link in post 1 for my explanation on this.

If these conclusions are wrong, then show how. Or instead, like Dom does, 'call me names'. Pick one: wacky bonkers twisted. There are many others and you could even make one up.

*************

Dom says:

The Apostle isn't teaching that the church is to be piloted by each one's opinion. Of course. Agreed. God/the Word pilots the Church, not individuals. Everyone knows this. The subject matter is a "weak brother" translated as immature convert who isn't at the level of his brethren. Nothing in the text says anything about immaturity. Thus, the principle that he teaches applies to every maturity level. One individual is eating nothing but vegetables because of his fear of not wanting to eat meat offered to idols. Does the text say this?

I would not argue with anyone who agrees with Dom in the above paragraph. But I will point out that this is 'reading between the lines', to better understand what Paul says. It makes sense to see it say this, but it is conjecture, using knowledge of history and other scripture to make sense of what Paul says here. It highlights the need to know history to better understand scripture. But those reading history will often see conflicting reports of history, leading to different conclusions.

Days are observed in ritualistic fashion by those "weak" in the faith. Paul, would rather have the stronger brethren tolerate the weaker instead of beating the snot out of them. Until those weaker brothers come to the fullness of truth in time. Where does it say this? It doesn't. These exterior thoughts are ascribed into the text, which doesn't necessarily mean it is a wrong conclusion. The logic of believing it this way would lead to seeing Paul telling the weak one that it is OK to temporarily believe in false doctrine, until he becomes mature enough to believe true doctrine. Paul is smart enough not to do it this way, for this sees an immature one forming a foundation which later will need to be dismantled. Smart builders such as Paul start with a good foundation and build up from there. This idea is dumb on many levels.

When Paul tells all to accept and not reject others holding contrary conclusions on some topics, he makes no indication at all that they must later accept the true doctirne. He indicates he accepts both as good. It is a strained effort to explain Ro14 the way Dom has described. But it is refreshing to see he makes efforts to make theological arguments.

This by no means sets a precedence for everyone to do what they believe to be right in their own mind. Right...you want to have your cake and eat it too. But, taking the opposing side, this is in the Word of God we are refering to. Anyone reading for the first time with understanding, then set precedence in their mind. God's Word is unchanging. You as an Evangelist hope to be believed when you present conclusions based on the Word, don't you. You can't say 'it is so' this time and then turn around and later say 'it isn't always so'. God's Word doesn't work like that - no shadow of turning, forever settled. Good logic does not lead to such statements as you have just made.

If a pastor, and elders are teaching what they believe to be truth. You'll need to be more specific. It is not known what you refer to here.

You have another revelation? You see something they aren't seeing? Then present it to them. If they are open to defend their position, while with an open mind considering your's, then may the Lord bless it. Well, here I am in AFF, presenting it to Apostolics. Why do you tell me to do something elsewhere, which I am already doing here?

But, if you cannot present your case logically, and Biblically. This is itself an illogical sentence.

If you present your case which creates more questions than it answers. Then don't expect anyone to consider any matter you present. Lofty allusions to my errors, Dom, without providing specifics which can have a defence of them presented. Are these allusions an example of the clarity you say I should use?

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that there are individuals out and about who lied on their resumé when it comes to being a preacher, pastor, leader of men. Who know only what was "told" to them from over a pulpit. Who when challenged on a one on one in a locked office, couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag concerning theology, or any other ology for that matter. Yet, that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about brethren who know book, chapter, and verse. But, I don't want to repeat myself. Don, you sound like a guy who had an epiphany, brought it to the front of the class, and everyone threw paper airplanes at you followed by some spit balls. Beautiful analogy again, Dom, as is usual from you.

But plz, how does this relate to Ro14? How does this provide reasons from logic or scripture to refute the contention that Ro14 isn't heeded in some ways in some Apostolic pulpits? How does the absence of any ology arguments disprove my presentation? Why doesn't your great (I'm not being facetious) knowledge, of scripture and the world, serve up something which is related to Ro14? I will predict that your future comments will claim that what (hasn't been here and now said) are the arguments you supposedly gave, which had refuted my contentions. But what you have said thus far falls far short of refuting.

The organization deals with their preachers on a case to case basis. No matter what the teaching may be. Different districts may let a Preterist bring cheesy corn bake to dinner on the grounds. Or an annihilationist, and Sabbatarian. Beards, wedding rings and even trousers on females all singing "I'm a Pentecostal." Relevance to the topic, plz?

Hey, I still can't get a real answer from you on what a "right living man" is supposed to be? This a diversionary tactic, in those not wanting to address today's topic. Questions from another thread will be dealt with in the appropriate thread. I've already been criticized for dragging a closed thread into a new thread, right?

Don, you had your back pockets chewed off by an organization? Oh well, deal with it. I'd assume that Apostolics are largely the same regardless of which Org they are in. I'm addressing Apostolic practices in this thread, not Org rules of any particular Org.

Move on, and try to find what lesson Jesus was trying to teach YOU. Great advice all should follow. No one else, just teach YOU. Answer this question Evangelist. When you received the revelation of Jesus name baptism, was it meant for you alone or also for teaching others? What logic do you hold which thinks any Bible truth is not for sharing? We speak what We know and testify what We have seen,.... I follow our Saviour's example. Do not be like Nicodemus. you do not receive Our witness.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Plz note what Paul does not do in Ro14.

-He does not here teach on holy days or on foods. His purpose in referencing them is only to use them as examples of the main thought he wishes to convey in Ro14; 15.1-7. He is using them to teach a principle.

Yes, he is still discussing the issues the early church was dealing within the Roman Judean culture. Sabbaths, and Animal sacrifices performed by Hellenized Judeans.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

-What he could do, is to tell these NT saints that those scriptures are OT, that they don't apply to the Gentile or the NT. But he doesn't.

Paul is dealing with individuals who are strong mature brethren, and weak immature brethren. He is trying to stop the strong one from ramming doctrine down the thoughts of the weak ones. This is apparent from Paul's letters to the churches. Not history, but we can see through Paul's discussions this is what he is getting at.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

-You should also notice another thing. He does not tell those who have differing opinions on these two topics, what it is they should be believing about them.

He doesn't have to, he does that in other letters. Paul already discussed with the Corinthians how he felt about meat offered to idols 1 Corinthians 10:19-22. Paul taught that you couldn't share the table of God with Demons. The act of sacrificing to these "gods" is actually an act of worship directed toward demons. Eating meat from these sacrifices, especially in the context of the idol's temple, creates a spiritual participation or "communion" with demons.
Therefore the brethren cannot partake in both the Lord's Supper and demonic feasts. Logically Paul had taught this in all his churches and therefore the Roman Judeans would've understood this all too well. Yet, Paul is trying to get the Strong Brothers to stop punching down on the weak brothers. I will note here that if you are saying you are a weak brother, and that the pastor and the elders of your church are strong brothers which should just hand the pulpit over to you? Then you are mistaken. No one is going to hand you the pulpit. From what I gathered from your shenanigans here, I wouldn't let you hold open the front door for MeMaw, and PePaw.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I'd assume that Apostolics are largely the same regardless of which Org they are in. I'm addressing Apostolic practices in this thread, not Org rules of any particular Org.

Actually, Apostolic Organizations, vary from group to group. As do most denominations. Yet, when we are referring to the United Pentecostal Church it is an organization of licensed ministers. Who have full autonomy over their congregations. Hence you may travel across the world going from UPC to UPC congregation and find some minor to major differences. Please keep in mind that the group came together to agree to disagree. A good book to read is "United We Stand" by Arthur L. Clanton.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When Paul tells all to accept and not reject others holding contrary conclusions on some topics, he makes no indication at all that they must later accept the true doctirne. He indicates he accepts both as good. It is a strained effort to explain Ro14 the way Dom has described. But it is refreshing to see he makes efforts to make theological arguments.

Nothing strained at all. Paul starts out with labeling one individual as weak in their faith, and in Corinth they are labeled weak in conscience. Obviously if we follow the totality of Paul's teachings to the first century church he doesn't want everyone to remain weak in faith and conscience. Paul called for spiritual growth. Paul stressed that mature saints must protect the conscience of less-mature believers (the "weak") from stumbling into sin, even if it means temporarily restricting their own freedoms, because the goal is unity and building others up, not religiosity to the point of causing harm. This is the entire point of what is seen in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, you are a smack talker. Were you the Mr. Smith in your story who was given the left foot of fellowship? We aren't called to stay in a church family or an organization to be troublemakers. Because you feel you figured it all out, and now desire the need to take everyone to school. No matter if it is eschatology, soteriology, or theology. If the pastor or the elders don't agree with you, you have three roads to go down. One shut up and sit down. Two leave and take your beliefs down the road with you, or three, joust it out with the pastor, and elders. If they are so inclined, and even have the strength to want to climb that mountain. Plain and simple. Also, if you weren't so bent on your ecclesiastical narcissism, you would of noticed this is a self moderating forum. Why? Because there is just a handful of active posters. With one active admin. If you really have a problem with me pointing out the obvious to you take it up with Votivesoul, the active admin. Other than that place me on ignore. I'm not your friend, you don't want friends because true friends won't always agree with you. You want spiderbots and that is all you get on this forum.

Any not wanting to discuss 1Co11 in this thread are fine by me. Let's talk about Ro14, shall we?

Dom opens post 12 with Don, you are a smack talker. And thereby sets the tone for understanding his remaining words. Being addressed to me, it sets me on edge - in a defensive posture. How can this lead to open viable theological discussions?

Dom says in post 12: We aren't called to stay in a church family or an organization to be troublemakers. Perhaps Dom is calling me a trouble maker, making this to be in line with his opening tone. And what of those who earnestly contend for the faith? Are they trouble makers by your definition, Dom? Or instead, are they trying to be obedient to the Word? A trouble maker is one from the heart. It is their nature to do so, regardless of the time or circumstance. Wherever they go, it will come through to the surface because that is what they are. What does Dom have as a definition of trouble maker? Do you Dom describe Jude as one instigating trouble?

Would Jude say to leave the fellowship of the NT faithful to contend from outside the Church, or not to stay in a church family? I don't read Jude to say to leave, which Dom seems to indicate. Those who contend for others to continue with or to return to the faith which was once for all delivered, do not leave the Church, or church, to do what the Word commands. They stay and from there contend.

Those who contend may have the appearance of being contentious. Some describe contending as troublemaking but not the Word. Godly Paul had much contention with Judaizers over circumcision but wouldn't in the end call him a trouble maker. you have three roads to go down. One shut up and sit down. Two leave and take your beliefs down the road with you, or three, joust it out with the pastor, and elders. #3 sounds like earnestly contend. So we agree. But why are you advising me to do what I'm already in the process of doing? What motivates you to give this motivation to me when I am self-motivated already? What gives?

Why have you been asleep at the helm of 'Good Ship AFF' and have not previously pointed out this neglect I see of Ro14 to Apostolics? Instead, it is left for some ecclesiastical narcissist to do it. Captain, you've been asleep at the wheel.

This thread is about Ro14 and its place in Church practice. Lets hear some comments from you on it, instead of sidetracking to describe me as a trouble maker with an unscriptural description of trouble making. I suppose those who went to the Apostles when unfairly treated in the daily distribution, Ac6, were trouble makers by your definition, right? The Apostles gave heed to them. Pastor Doe rejects B. Smith and is disregarding Paul's teaching of acceptance seen prominently in Ro14. He does not give heed.

Dom also says: Also, if you weren't so bent on your ecclesiastical narcissism (well, giving heed to Jude's advice to contend for the faith is not narcissism, but is showing love for the Word. But I understand you feel a need to 'paint bad' those you don't wish to be friends with, doing so with terms like ecclesiastical narcissism)...If you really have a problem with me pointing out the obvious to you take it up with Votivesoul, the active admin. Is it obvious that I am an ecclesiastical narcissist? As I've stated many times before in other threads, I welcome replies having to do with the Word, including any who would not consider themselves to be my friend. I'm not your friend, you don't want friends because true friends won't always agree with you. Your statement lacks cohesion but I say Amen, thinking I know what you mean. True friends will not always agree and should then tell you if they think you are wrong. All should welcome one who does so in amicable ways. As a true friend of AFF and Jesus, I have taken on the task to amicably show Apostolics the neglect of Ro14 in some areas of scripture. Plz do show how you think my reasoning and understanding of scripture is wrong. Your comments are always welcomed if amicably given. Not so much so if you persist in name calling without any accompanying scriptural arguments. You got it you to do so but you don't, for reasons unknown to me.

Change your ways and show my thoughts wrong, without name calling.